News & Analysis
Comment
vivekv80
It will be interesting to see how they perform against FPGAs.
Robotics Developer
Looks like an interesting and bold move! I would be curious to see just how ...
TI to put floating point in every DSP core
Junko Yoshida
11/9/2010 8:00 AM EST
Base station market
So, what’s the landscape for the base station market today?
TI continues as number one, followed by Freescale and LSI Corp., according to Forward Concepts’ Strauss. Earlier this year, Strauss observed TI garnering a 61 percent of the wireless infrastructure DSP market, followed by Freescale at 16%, LSI at 9% and Others (including Fujitsu, NEC, etc.) at 14%.
Many analysts note that Freescale has become a formidable competitor to TI. Joseph Byrne, senior analyst at the Linley Group, said, “Freescale has done well recently on the strength of its products.” Freescale was early with a 45nm DSP and used this process-technology advantage to integrate on a single chip more DSP cores than TI, and ‘MAPLE-B’ coprocessor that offloads certain functions related to baseband processing, he added.
Indeed, “while many thought TI had locked up the base station market at one point, Freescale made a successful bid to it – in the LTE/4G market – over the last two years,” said BDTI’s Bier. Freescale’s success inspired others like “Mindspeed Technologies and LSI Logic to take some pieces of the action,” Bier added.
While nothing is announced, Intel, too, has made clear overtures toward the base station market, according to Bier. Intel, at the SDR conference a year ago, unveiled its SDR implementation in wireless base stations, using Intel’s PC processors.
Strauss also noted that FPGAs continue to have “a significant role in the base station market.” Even though TI swears that their newest chip ‘doesn't require FPGAs, Strauss said, “Every time I peek into the base station, there are a number of FPGAs...sometimes employed as RF down converters, which is still a necessary DSP function, but not as part of the baseband.”
As competition intensifies, each player needs to get even more creative in new product offerings. The issue is how future base-station SoCs handle not just the physical (Layer 1) and data link layers (Layer 2) but the network layer (Layer 3) and above in the OSI model.
In TI’s new base station SoC, TI’s engineering team integrated an autonomous packet processing engine and programmable DSPs enabling full multicore entitlement, in addition to the filed proven PHY technology where TI’s legacy strength lies.
Freescale, meanwhile, has a distinct edge in its network processors, which have remained separate products thus far. Industry analysts like Bier are closely watching when and how Freescale may integrate such network processing functions into base station products.
So, what’s the landscape for the base station market today?
TI continues as number one, followed by Freescale and LSI Corp., according to Forward Concepts’ Strauss. Earlier this year, Strauss observed TI garnering a 61 percent of the wireless infrastructure DSP market, followed by Freescale at 16%, LSI at 9% and Others (including Fujitsu, NEC, etc.) at 14%.
Many analysts note that Freescale has become a formidable competitor to TI. Joseph Byrne, senior analyst at the Linley Group, said, “Freescale has done well recently on the strength of its products.” Freescale was early with a 45nm DSP and used this process-technology advantage to integrate on a single chip more DSP cores than TI, and ‘MAPLE-B’ coprocessor that offloads certain functions related to baseband processing, he added.
Indeed, “while many thought TI had locked up the base station market at one point, Freescale made a successful bid to it – in the LTE/4G market – over the last two years,” said BDTI’s Bier. Freescale’s success inspired others like “Mindspeed Technologies and LSI Logic to take some pieces of the action,” Bier added.
While nothing is announced, Intel, too, has made clear overtures toward the base station market, according to Bier. Intel, at the SDR conference a year ago, unveiled its SDR implementation in wireless base stations, using Intel’s PC processors.
Strauss also noted that FPGAs continue to have “a significant role in the base station market.” Even though TI swears that their newest chip ‘doesn't require FPGAs, Strauss said, “Every time I peek into the base station, there are a number of FPGAs...sometimes employed as RF down converters, which is still a necessary DSP function, but not as part of the baseband.”
As competition intensifies, each player needs to get even more creative in new product offerings. The issue is how future base-station SoCs handle not just the physical (Layer 1) and data link layers (Layer 2) but the network layer (Layer 3) and above in the OSI model.
In TI’s new base station SoC, TI’s engineering team integrated an autonomous packet processing engine and programmable DSPs enabling full multicore entitlement, in addition to the filed proven PHY technology where TI’s legacy strength lies.
Freescale, meanwhile, has a distinct edge in its network processors, which have remained separate products thus far. Industry analysts like Bier are closely watching when and how Freescale may integrate such network processing functions into base station products.
Navigate to related information


VincePG
11/9/2010 11:57 PM EST
It's about time. Should make life easier.
Sign in to Reply
Robotics Developer
11/10/2010 5:23 PM EST
Looks like an interesting and bold move! I would be curious to see just how much of the base station design could be integrated into the new chips. Given the statements from the article, is there a real opportunity for some vendor to provide a best overall "system solution" chip by adding the needed features currently supported by the FPGAs? It would seem to be a big win, with such a large market waiting for a one chip (or maybe small chip set) solution that would be lower cost, smaller, and lower power needs. Just wondering if it is possible and if someone is already running down that path....
Sign in to Reply
vivekv80
11/18/2010 1:29 PM EST
It will be interesting to see how they perform against FPGAs.
Sign in to Reply